On March 17, when Darcy Burner stood at a podium in Washington D.C. and introduced the Responsible Plan to end the war in Iraq, it was hard to predict what might happen. It was an overly ambitious venture for a mere Congressional challenger to cajole a group of generals, national security experts and fellow candidates behind a unified legislative blueprint on such a divisive issue, and while the nine initial co-endorsers comprised an impressive lineup, that coalition was months in the making. Candidates are generally advised not to get too specific on the issues this early the campaign; you don’t want to give your opponent even the tiniest club with which to bash you. Would other challengers momentarily put conventional wisdom (and their precious “call time”) aside, and join Burner in sticking her neck out on such a bold endeavor? Or would the Plan, and Burner’s energetic efforts to promote it, more than likely fizzle?
Only ten days later, 43 Democratic challengers have already signed on to the Responsible Plan — with many more closely considering it — and the national media is beginning to take notice. Mother Jones, the Washington Post and NPR have all cited the plan, and The Nation will publish an editorial in their next issue. Beltway buzz has been building ahead of a media conference call scheduled today with Burner and several of the other endorsers, and the call is expected to be well attended by both local and national journalists. I wouldn’t be surprised to see a flurry of fresh coverage in the coming days, and with it, a flurry of new endorsements.
Some have started comparing the Responsible Plan to the GOP’s “Contract With America” back in 1994, but the differences are as striking as the similarities. Like the Contract, the Plan delivers to voters a clear and coherent message about what they can expect from the endorsers should they be elected, but while the Contract never reached beyond core principles, the Responsible Plan offers specific proposals and cites existing legislation. And while the heavily focus-grouped Contract was formulated by GOP uber-strategist Frank Luntz and imposed on the challengers from above by incoming Speaker Newt Gingrich, the Responsible Plan is the outcome of a genuinely grassroots efforts, outside the purview (and I’d wager, the wishes) of the DCCC.
Back in August of 2007, when Burner closed her Internet Town Hall on Iraq with a promise to work with Gen. Paul Eaton to develop a plan, her staff and advisers dared to hope that the announcement was just some clever political ploy; indeed they strongly advised her not to get distracted from a candidate’s primary task: raising the millions of dollars necessary to wage a viable campaign. Well… if they thought they’d dissuade her, they sure didn’t know our Darcy. Burner may be eager to seek out advice, but she’s not so quick to follow it blindly. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned in the three years I’ve known her, it’s that she’s not to be underestimated.
Support the original ten endorsers of the Responsible Plan:
The Darcy – you gotta at least admire her ambition, even if it is grossly misplaced. Hell, I might as well run for President if she’s qualified to be a member of Congress.
As an aside about Iraq, can any of you explain to me why this Muqtada Sadr is still breathing? He should have been reduced to a fucking grease spot years ago with the problems he has caused the US.
1 MGI
You might run for something, which will give us a change to denigrate your ideas as stupid, your experience as inadequate, and your prospects as dim. I am sure you would not view them the same way.
So we have MGI, TRM, Cynical, MTR, et. al. on one hand, and 43 Democratic challengers, Mother Jones, the Washington Post, NPR, and The Nation on the other.
Who to believe, who to believe?
@1:
You’re asking US? Why don’t you ask the criminal incompetent piece of shit in the White House who YOU no doubt voted for?
President-to-be Obama has promised to re-regulate the financial industry, which obviously is incapable of self-restraint.
Meanwhile, McCain’s laissez-faire “solution” for America’s worst financial meltdown since the 1930s “amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen.” (Obama’s words.)
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/o.....2409990021
Roger Rabbit Commentary: Unregulated capitalism doesn’t work. Period. Whenever the rightwing idiots whose economic thinking is stuck in the 19th century get in power, even for a short time, Democrats have to follow behind them and sweep up the mess that deregulation always creates.
Yes, why would we (the occupying army) “allow” Muqtada al-Sadr to live? After all, he is just an overwhelmingly popular Muslim Imam and inheritor of the mantle of his father (martyred for opposing Saddam and champion of the poor), leader of one of the largest and most disciplined militias in a nation FULL of militias, and the man whom if a fair election is held will probably be able to name the next PM of Iraq. The decisions is a slam-dunk, right?
Instead, we should continue to back the Iranian-backed ISCI and Dawa party officials and THEIR militias (they call them the Iraqi security forces), and keep bombing Iraq until those fucking Iraqis learn to love us.
29 killed, 39 wounded in Hilla S. of Baghdad
http://www.rttnews.com/FOREX/g.....038;item=6
I respect McCain’s military service, but a guy who was deemed by his superiors as qualified to command a ship or front-line squadron not only doesn’t have the experience and judgment to be commander-in-chief, he is even LESS qualified to be put in charge of our economy! With the country already facing a severe economic crisis, this is the wrong time to put a recycled Herbert Hoover in charge of our economic fate.
erratum
unqualified not qualified
(Nothing so dramatic as a Freudian slip there, my wingy friends; merely peanut butter stuck between the keys.)
Itchy Brain @ 1,
“…she’s qualified to be a member of Congress.”
Blah, blah, blah.
Let’s see…Darcy is at least twenty five years of age, she has been a citizen of the United States for at least 7 years, and she is very likely to still be a resident of Washington state in November. Hence she is fully qualified to be a member of congress.
But what will make her a better Representative than Sheriff Hairspray is that (1) she is a talented and natural leader, (2) she is energetic and hard-working, (3) she is intelligent.
It is very hard to argue that Hairspray has any of those attributes.
@1 What gives you the right to go into someone else’s country and kill their leaders, you immoral piece of shit?
Speaking of qualifications to serve in congress, it’s hard to find a Republican incumbent who isn’t stuck at the comic-book reading level.
Meanwhile, the GOPers’ Great Leader stumbled over the word “goat” …
@4 RR
On this we agree. Someone should make the rad righties READ their currency. The dollar is a token of the most socialist production of all .. money!
I also like them when they talk about the “death tax.” Billy G has created an immortal .. the Bill and Melinda Gates of Eternity Foundation. The donations were tax advantaged .. i.e. whatever he put into this noble cause, we heavily subsidized by tax dollars.
Now the Foundation assumes an even more formidable character .. it is now an individual who is free of taxation. Can I please be a foundation??
Goats are something every Republican should be very familiar with, having “cut their teeth” (so to speak) on their pet goats when they reached puberty.
RR
can you please contact me by email? I have a personal question I do nto want to post here.
#13 is a gratuitous insult. We do a lot of that here. We are, after all, dealing with wingfucks.
Again… notice how nobody ever attempts to explain what it is that qualifies Reichert to be a congressman? Nobody ever defends Reichert — they only attack Darcy. Hmm.
Itchy:
It could be argued that for most elected positions, and certainly for Congress (or President, for that matter) nobody is really “qualified” until they’ve actually done the job.
Only then do we get to see whether that person has the ability to grow into the job, or just become a seatwarmer, voting as directed by party whips.
So, we’ve seen Representative Reichert’s performance in the job, and even his supporters can’t find much good to say about it.
Yes, Ms. Burner is, in many ways an unknown. She’s shown some promise, but until she’s actually doing the job, we cannot say for a certainty that she’ll do better than Representative Reichert. (She couldn’t do worse even if she just stayed home for two years.) While I think that someone simply voting our party line is somewhat better than someone voting your party line, if that turns out to be all she is, then I will be very disappointed.
One thing, however, is certain. She cannot do worse than the person currently filling that position. I think she has the potential to do much better, and there really is no down side to letting her try.
The choice here is between an inexperienced but enthusiastic candidate that may not be up to the job, and a tired, ineffective incumbent that has proven that he’s not up to the job.
Easy choice.
@14 How does one contact you by e-mail? I don’t see an e-mail address on your web site.
@16 Because they’ve got nothing to defend him with. No record of accomplishment. No pull in congress. No brains, no program, nothing but hot air and discredited wingnut ideology.
JB at 17: Well said.
Wow.
So 43 democrats wanna surrender and have signed their names to a pledge to do so.
Why don’t these 43 “brave” souls hop on a plane and just go negotiate w/ Al Qaeda today. Unarmed, of course, just like they want the American citizen to be.
The gals at Deja Vu are gonna look soooooo hot in Burqas…
This political promotion of a “pretend” Plan that isn’t really a Plan is fun to watch.
There are huuuuge differences between this and the 1994 Contract with America in that this lacks specifics.
And c’mon Goldy…Darcy not only did not write this Plan, she had very little input because she has newspaper-reader information. ZERO intelligence information.
It’s insane to put forth something as a “Plan” that lacks intelligence input.
But keep up the fallicy promotion.
Hey, it may work to get elected.
But it has zero to do with the reality of what is happening on the ground.
Have any Democrats on the Intelligence Committee signed on to this “Plan”?????????????????
If not, why not.
Their lack of participation tells me this is merely an “election gimmick” to rally around.
Darcy Burner is merely a “talking PINHEAD”.
Let her and her alone stand up to questioning on the fact base and precisely who drafted this “pretend plan”. I can hear her now referring to her many years in Microsoft and how they did things at Microsoft.
Does anyone possibly believe that Bill Gates would accept this as a “Plan” at Microsoft??
Darcy would be canned if she told Gates this was the “Plan”.
It’s an Election gimmick!!…unlike the Contract with America which was a clear pledge & promise.
A Microsoft “activist” for Congress?? Sheesh.
Cynical @ 22
At least Goldy properly lists these political newbies as “endorsers” instead of the authors they pretend to be. I still think the “endorsees” typo(?) on the homepage of website is more of a Freudian slip than Goldy or the rest of the Kool-Aid Gang will admit.
RR @18:
Roger, if you go to his blog and click on “view my complete profile” there is an email link from there.
Washington’s troika of GOP representatives is truly embarrassing–Davey the Dim, DumbDoc Hastings, and Catherine McMuddled Rogers. Between the three of them, they don’t have the IQ of a gerbil. Neither Davey nor Doc even has a college degree, and I’m unsure about Rogers. Their list of accomplishments is shorter than GW’s flaccid dick. They need their jobs in Congress because they are so incapable that none of them could even aspire to a lobbying job should they lose their seat, which job otherwise seems to be the birthright of retired representatives. GOP foot soldiers really should avoid a discussion of qualifications for Congress; they cannot win that argument.
Darcy Burner looks like Mrs. Doubtfire. she should stay in the kitcen.
It looks like the young Republicans club at one of our local high schools has just finished lunch and is blogging from the computers in the library. Keep it down, guys. Some folks are actually in there to read books.
It’s pretty obvious that none of them actually read the plan. They would have noticed that the authors include a number of actual military people. Yes, we all realize that Ms. Burner needed to gather folks with expertise in the current military situation in Iraq.
The best you folks have been able to do is to say that you don’t think Ms. Burner is qualified for the job.
Of course, you carefully avoid the fact that out of the two candidates, only one of them has proven that he cannot do the job.
Let’s give the other one a try, shall we? She’s shown that she can manage people (Microsoft), can work with military experts and construct a coalition (the Responsible Plan), and that she cares deeply about the issues (her entire campaign).
Apparently, you folks have been reduced to name-calling.
Cynical: ” . . . it has zero to do with the reality of what is happening on the ground.”
And, Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz had a plan that had something to do with what was happening on the ground? Horseshit. Those bastards winged this war from day 1, and the only considerations that ever mattered a damn to any of them were ideological or political considerations. For most Iraq War supporters, soldiers and Iraqi citizens are fungible goods, not people with families, aspirations, and faces. Reality and those who have planned the Iraq War are utterly unconnected.
The gals at Deja Vu
cm’s home away from home.
Dumbass @ 1:
Freedom’s on the march in Iraq. Didn’t you get the fucking RNC talking point memo from your Commander-in-Chimp?
Muqtada al Sadr is not fucking dead because his party holds 1/3 of the seats in Iraq’s parliament.
What? You don’t like free an open elections?
Are you suggesting that Bush order the political assassination of a freely elected leader in Iraq that we helped “liberate?”
You’re living proof of Al Gore’s book “The Assault on Reason.”
Dolt!
Nice to see Darcy’s undeniable leadership skills on display.
She has the judgement, the experinece and the skills to LEAD, unlike Deputy DuffASS Dave.
Mr Cynical,
This Responsible Plan was drafted in part by Gen Paul Eaton who commanded on the groun in Iraq.
But, then again, you have a track record of hating the troops and Gold Star mothers.
You unpatriotic prick.
@33…GBS…
Why is it that only those who root for the defeat of the troops are the ones who support the troops?
I’m a two-star, blue-star dad…I support the troops because two of them are my children!
Also, Gen Eaton was a two-star, and two-stars don’t have the whiskers to be the ground commander in Iraq – that’s a three-star billet. Eaton’s last assignment in Iraq was training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004.
So many of the HA Happy Hooligans thing the sun rises and sets on Gen. Eaton’s POV because he agrees with you. No mention is made of other senior officers who hold contrary views. And why is it that Eaton must be accepted at face value with his word (as expressed in the “Reprehensible Plan”) must be regarded as holy writ gospel while the pronouncements of Gen. David Petreaus are summarily dismissed as lies, orchestrated mutterings of a Bush administration toadie, and delusional rantings?
The Darcy’s plan is getting its 15 minutes of fame (thank you Marshall McLuhan), but it will soon be relegated to the “Buy One Get One Free” bin at Half-Price Books along with the novels of Danielle Steele, the update to Hillary Clinton’s autobiography, “Under Fire In Bosnia,” and Barack Obama’s theological treatise, “Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Christ’s Gospel of Love and Forgiveness: A Deaf Man Goes to Church.”
The entertainment value of all this is so delicious I might have to cancel my HBO – but then I’d miss the John Adams mini-series that, if watched by the HA Happy Hooligans, would be a good primer on what the United States is all about and the principles upon wich it was founded.
The Piper
31 – I wasn’t aware that Sadr was elected to anything, I thought it was just a bunch of his followers who were in Parliament. In any case, I guess you are perfectly OK with an agent of Iran with his own private militia shooting at US and Iraqi troops.
And here’s another question…..can you make it through the day without personally attacking someone? Forget making it through the day, do you have it in you to submit a single post void of personal attacks? I await your vitriol.
21 cmk
So 43 democrats wanna surrender and have signed their names to a pledge to do so.
Nope. 43 Democrats want us to leave the biggest military/foreign policy fuck-up of any of our lifetimes.
Why don’t these 43 “brave” souls hop on a plane and just go negotiate w/ Al Qaeda today. Unarmed, of course, just like they want the American citizen to be.
We’re not at war with Al-Qaida in Iraq. We’re at war with the people of Iraq. Or is it just OK that we’re killing and mamining thousands of them each year and have made 5 million of them refugees in order to unsucessfully attempt to “get at” the approximately 6000 AQI fighters who are only in Iraq because we are there? Doesn’t that make the US seem like a bunch of thugs, or worse, idiots? (Hint: yes.)
The gals at Deja Vu are gonna look soooooo hot in Burqas…
Oh, the old “They will follow us home” bullshit? Tell me, what’s keeping a non-AQI Iraqi who’s pissed off that we occupied his country and killed his family, or the free-as-a-bird AQ members in Pakistan and worldwide, from coming here? Ummm, that would be nothing. And once they get here, just what’s your scenario in which they “take over?” That’s the lamest non-reason to withdraw from our murderous war in a Godforsaken harmless nation ever proposed.
35 MGI
He is politically, militarily, religiously, and popularly one of the most if not THE most powerful man in Iraq. If our dozens and dozens of other really stupid missteps, such as living in Saddam’s palaces, installing children and political hacks to run their nation, and using Abu Ghraib for torture haven’t turned enough Iraqis against us, killing their most popular and powerful leader (leader: someone whom the people want to lead them) would be a freakin’ doozy.
So we can’t leave because things might get bad there, but inflaming a nation by murdering their religious leaders AND THEN STAYING is a good idea.
See why we need a plan to leave? You guys are too stupid to trust.
34 PS
Yes, a plan that has dozens of challengers signing on to support it and that has national recognition and publicity in an election that will be a referendum on the war is surely doomed to obscurity.
Daddy–
Where are the Democrat members of the Intelligence Committee’s signatures on this “Plan”??
If it is soooooo all that, why wouldn’t they sign?
It’s a “political gimmick”…period.
@38…DL…
Exactly how many supporters of “Reprehensible Plan” have been elected to public office?
To date, the continued escapades of Brittany and K-Fed have gotten more media exposure, and The Bucket List is more seriously regarded as a paradigm of artistic achievement in cinema than the “Reprehensible Plan” is given odds of being taken seriously on Capitol Hill.
Vegas oddsmakers refuse to make book on it, the odds are so long against it.
Curious…what happens if some of the assumptions in the plan turn out to be false? Or predicted behaviors don’t materialize? Anything in the plan to address those contingencies? That leave room for a military response in the event the plan flops?
Interesting questions to pose to The Darcy, don’t you think?
The Piper
40 PS
Guess what? In case you’vbe been reading a magazine in a bathroom somewhere since 2002, we’re there now, and our assumptions turned out to be false, predicted behaviors didn’t materialize, and we already used our military response.
And it’s not fucking working. So what should we do? We should leave. Why not? It’s not working.
39 Cyn
It’s a political gimick, AND it’s a plan to leave.
You know, when you turn your government over to people determined to prove that government is corrupt and incompetent, they prove it. Iraq’s just one example.
roger are you fuckin dense.how many times must one prove you a fuckin liar.look up va 174 asshole in the navy that is a bonus command sought out by only the most qualified.but hey when did facts get in your way.john kerry swift boat co hahahahahahahahahahahaha.
john @17 and how would you know do you in his district?
45 PU
Dave Reichert’s non-performance is a matter of public record, and not a secret shared among his constituents.
…and really, when’s the last time you read a book or attended English class?
BTW, this seems to confirm my personal theory that the Mahdi Army’s “truce” was time to arm and train…
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03.....wanted=all
“Heavier and more sophisticated weapons” than the Iraqi Army?
mgi@35 you must nnot take gbs to heart he is mad at the world.when he was younger he got into a fight with an officer(cant hold his booze)the booted him from the navy and he has been on the rag ever since.
Roger Rabbit, it is there, under about me. AS it sdays I do not regularly read that account but if I know there is eomething there I will.
Piper: “Curious…what happens if some of the assumptions in the plan turn out to be false?”
I recall some assumptions that Bush and McCain articulated before the invasion that turned out to be false–“I do believe we’ll be greeted as liberators” was one of the more prominent false assumptions. How did the failing of that assumption result in modification of Bush’s war “plan”? Not at all, as far as I can tell, other than to cause him to prolong the anticipated occupation.
35 MGI
In any case, I guess you are perfectly OK with an agent of Iran with his own private militia shooting at US and Iraqi troops.
Well, the so-called “Iraqi Army” is just the militias of the ISCI and Dawa parties, both of whom have extremely close ties to Iran. I think it would be a safe bet to say if they weren’t currently the guys in power that they’d be shooting at us too, and they probably do anyway from time to time. And the “agent of Iran” to whom you are referring is an Iraqi nationalist (what here sometimes we call a “patriot”) who has publicly stated that he will not allow Iranian interference in Iraqi affairs.
And dude, EVERYBODY in Iraq who is part of a large organized political or religious entity has their own private militia. I swear sometimes you guys speak as if you’ve never read a newspaper.
Anyway, you think that the current Iraqi government is hostile to Iran? Think again.
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=8172
50 PL
Yeah, I got that too…see my response to him.
@50…PL…
True, some initial assumptions turned out to be incorrect, and certainly mistakes were made. That’s not the point, however, of this thread.
To implicitely contend that because mistakes were made then, that there is no need to worry about or even consider the consequences of mistakes in The Darcy’s “Reprehensible Plan” is to beg disaster.
Let’s say the plan is adopted yet during implementation, something goes drastically awry. Where are the contingencies in the plan to halt it, address the problems even to the point of increasing a military presence, fix the issue, then go back to the plan?
Frankly, the whole plan smacks of just a very verbose and complex way of saying, “We quit – we surrender – we give up – job’s too tough – we no longer care – we’re just going to turn tail and run for the hills while hoping for the best but leaving you Iraqi’s to your own mode and means.”
Nothing original or clever about that! It’s essentially how Vichy France got its start.
The Piper
#53
That was the readers digest version? It is of suspect authenticity.
We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. How much more do we need to spend before you’ll feel safe.
Your equating having your army’s teeth kicked in by a few German armies. To backing carefully away from a horrible mistake. Your logic to support this would be?
53 Piper, something went “drastically away” in 2000. There’s no way to fix it.
Bush’s sorry-ass war isn’t going to be any less of a mistake if we wait another year or five years or ten years to come to grips with it.
It is impossible to believe that the Iraq War could be directed more incompetently than how it is currently being prosecuted: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23788065. The Responsible Plan may have some gaps and its implementation might later require some improvisation. I believe, however, that such risks are minimal compared to continuing to follow the course of the Bushites. Anything would be an improvement over that course. The Bushites have proven time and again that they haven’t a clue what they’re doing, yet we see that they still have a cheering section. What is that old definition of insanity? Something about making a mistake over and over again just to see if the result remains the same?
GOTTA LOVE ALL YOU ARM CHAIR COMMANDOS.
@ 57:
Hey, you supporting John “White Flag McCain the Surrender Monkey?
Just axin’.
The Piper “Domestic Violence” Kid @ 34
I’m glad your proud of your sons. So, too, are the rest of us. But, you are own kid’s worst enemy by supporting a president who lied us into a war in Iraq. Iraq, like Vietnam cannot have a clear cut military victory like WWII. Or, Kosovo, for that matter.
You’re selected memory of recent history is LAUGHABLE.
Do you recall the “General’s Revolt”? Google it and save me some keystorkes.
But, since a 2 star isn’t good enough for you how about Gen Ricardo Sanchez? He commanded all forces in Iraq. He said, and I fucking quote:
“The so-called surge of troops in Iraq is “a desperate attempt by the administration,” and the best the U.S. can do at this point is to “stave off defeat,” Sanchez said.
Asked when he realized the war was on the skids, Sanchez said, “15 June 2003” — the day he took over as commander of coalition forces.
The officers and military leadership involved in the planning for the war in Iraq suffered from “an absolute lack of moral courage to stand up and do what was right in terms of planning,” Sanchez said. “We allowed ourselves to believe we would be greeted as liberators,” he said.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21272663/
Is that General good enough for you?? He said the surege is a desparate attempt to stave off DEFEAT!!!
Don’t worry, you obviously dont’ care for your family, hence track record of domestic violence. But I’ll fight so your kids don’t come home in body bags, or limbs missing, or brain injuries.
Grow up.
@ 35:
“Forget making it through the day, do you have it in you to submit a single post void of personal attacks?
Yes, but I prefer not to when I’m dealing with unpatriotic pricks like you.
Piper wife beater at 38
“Curious…what happens if some of the assumptions in the plan turn out to be false?”
you mean like “Saddam Hussein has Weapons of Mass Destruction. No DOUBT about it.”
George W. Bush.
You mean like George’s assumption as a pretext for war?
Yeah, grow up, please.
correx @ 61 should be
Mother beater at 40
28 Thats funny. We shall call her Darcy Doubtfire,
daughter of Mrs.
@56…AF…
“…something went ‘drastically away’ in 2000. There’s no way to fix it.”
Aye, that’s the rub!
All this really has nothing to do with the Iraq War or any war or policy; it’s all about George W. Bush.
If President Bush were to personally find a cure for cancer, get oil prices down to $3/barrel, eliminate poverty, secure world peace, and get your kid(s) into the school(s) of your choice, you still would hold the 2000 election against him.
Objective observers have known this all along, but it’s nice that you confirmed it for us.
Thank you.
The Piper
The Oil Factor – Behind the war on terror.
1 – 6.5 billion humans depend entirely on oil for food, energy, plastics & chemicals.
2 – Population growth is on a collision course with the inevitable decline in oil production.
3 – George Bush’s “war on terror” happens where 3/4 of the world’s remaining oil and natural gas is located.
McCain has caught the vision and will stay the course in Iraq. Watch all 9 episoles of the independent video production at the link below.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BD8z4q2lMCU
Draw your own conclusions!!!
@ 54
Let’s say the plan is adopted yet during implementation, something goes drastically awry.
Like what?
One of the problems, perhaps the most significant problem, with Baker-Hamilton is that it never defines what “chaos” means in such a way that we can distinguish it from what’s already happening in Iraq.
And, if you foresee it, you can’t provide a contingency for it. At the same time, the absence of any specific contingency doesn’t mean you can’t alter the plan to adjust to things that you couldn’t foresee.
The “surge” had no contingencies for what to do if the Iraqis failed to achieve political reconciliation as a result of it, and that outcome was foreseeable. Did you criticize the plan then? Of course not. You extolled it as a certain path to victory!
@ 65
All this really has nothing to do with the Iraq War or any war or policy; it’s all about George W. Bush.
Ah, yes. The retreat of a Republican apologist who has run out of any rhetorical ammunition capable of fending off the barrage of attacks directed at the numerous failed policies of the Bush Administration. Dismiss every substantive point as hatred for George W. Bush.
If you so savor the prospects of a verbal duel, why do you so consistently show up with a rhetorical gun loaded with blanks?
Erratum: “if you foresee it” should read “if you can’t foresee it”
@ 66
It’s not just the oil factor. Were that the case, Hugo Chavez makes a much easier target. The fact that we’re talking about Muslims, and not Christians, makes a significant difference–a reality with which I should think you are intimately acquainted.